778 SCRA 250 / G.R. No. 173140. January 11, 2016.

MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY

[MCIAA], petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF GAVINA IJORDAN, namely,
JULIAN CUISON, FRANCISCA CUISON, DAMASINA CUISON,
PASTOR CUISON, ANGELINA CUISON, MANSUETO CUISON,
BONIFACIA CUISON, BASILIO CUISON, MOISES CUISON, and
FLORENCIO CUISON, respondents.
Civil Law; Contracts; Agency; Article 1317 of the Civil Code provides
that no person could contract in the name of another without being
authorized by the latter, or unless he had by law a right to represent him;
the contract entered into in the name of another by one who has no
authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers, is
unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person
on whose behalf it has been executed, before it is revoked by the other
contracting party.—Article 1317 of the Civil Code provides that no person
could contract in the name of another without being authorized by the
latter, or unless he had by law a right to represent him; the contract
entered into in the name of another by one who has no authority or legal
representation, or who has acted beyond his powers, is unenforceable,
unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf
it has been executed, before it is revoked by the other contracting party.
But the
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.

251
VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 251
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Heirs of
Gavina Ijordan

conveyance by Julian through the Deed had full force and effect with
respect to his share of 1/22 of the entire property consisting of 546 square
meters by virtue of its being a voluntary disposition of property on his part.
 Same; Land Registration; Torrens System; Under the Torrens
System, no adverse possession could deprive the registered owners of
their title by prescription; Thus, once title is registered, the owner may rest
secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting
on the mirador su casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land.—
MCIAA’s contention on acquisitive prescription in its favor must fail. Aside
from the absence of the satisfactory showing of MCIAA’s supposed
possession of the subject lot, no acquisitive prescription could arise in
view of the indefeasibility of the respondents’ Torrens title. Under the
Torrens System, no adverse possession could deprive the registered
owners of their title by prescription. The real purpose of the Torrens
System is to quiet title to land and to stop any question as to its legality
forever. Thus, once title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without
the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the mirador
su casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of
Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Silvino G. Maceren, Jr. and Belen Aldecoa Padayhag for
respondents.
BERSAMIN, J.:

A sale of jointly owned real property by a co-owner without the

express authority of the others is unenforceable against the latter,
but valid and enforceable against the seller.

252
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Heirs of
Gavina Ijordan

The Case
This appeal assails the decision promulgated on February 22, 2006
in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 61509,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirmed the orders issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53,
in Lapu-Lapu City (RTC) on September 2, 1997,2 and March 6,
1998.3

Antecedents

On October 14, 1957, Julian Cuizon (Julian) executed a Deed of

Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale4 (Deed) covering Lot No. 4539
(subject lot) situated in Ibo, Municipality of Opon (now Lapu-Lapu
City) in favor of the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), the
predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Manila Cebu International
Airport Authority (MCIAA). Since then until the present, MCIAA
remained in material, continuous, uninterrupted and adverse
possession of the subject lot through the CAA, later renamed the
Bureau of Air Transportation (BAT), and is presently known as the
Air Transportation Office (ATO). The subject lot was transferred
and conveyed to MCIAA by virtue of Republic Act No. 6958.
In 1980, the respondents caused the judicial reconstitution of the
original certificate of title covering the subject lot (issued by virtue
of Decree No. 531167). Consequently, Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) No. RO-2431 of the Register of Deeds of Cebu was
reconstituted for Lot No. 4539 in the names of the respondents’
predecessors-in-interest, namely, Gavina Ijordan, and Julian,
Francisca, Damasina, Marciana, Pastor, Angela, Mansueto,
Bonifacia, Basilio, Moises and
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 8-18; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with
the concurrence of Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale (retired/deceased) and
Vicente L. Yap (retired).
2 Id., at pp. 95-99.
3 Id., at pp. 112-113.
4 Id., at pp. 59-61, 9-10.
 253
VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 253
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Heirs of
Gavina Ijordan

Florencio, all surnamed Cuison.5 The respondents’ ownership of

the subject lot was evidenced by OCT No. RO-2431. They asserted
that they had not sold their shares in the subject lot, and had not
authorized Julian to sell their shares to MCIAA’s predecessor-in-
interest.6
The failure of the respondents to surrender the owner’s copy of
OCT No. RO-2431 prompted MCIAA to sue them for the
cancellation of title in the RTC,7 alleging in its complaint that the
certificate of title conferred no right in favor of the respondents
because the lot had already been sold to the Government in 1957;
that the subject lot had then been declared for taxation purposes
under Tax Declaration No. 00387 in the name of the BAT; and that
by virtue of the Deed, the respondents came under the legal
obligation to surrender the certificate of title for cancellation to
enable the issuance of a new one in its name.
At the trial, MCIAA presented Romeo Cueva, its legal assistant, as
its sole witness who testified that the documents pertaining to the
subject lot were the Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale and Tax
Declaration No. 00387 in the name of the BAT; and that the subject
lot was utilized as part of the expansion of the Mactan Export
Processing Zone Authority I.8
After MCIAA’s presentation of evidence, the respondents moved to
dismiss the complaint upon the Demurrer to Evidence dated
February 3, 1997,9 contending that the Deed and Tax Declaration
No. 00387 had no probative value to support MCIAA’s cause of
action and its prayer for relief. They cited Section 3, Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court which provided that “when the subject of inquiry
is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 63-64.
6 Id., at pp. 95-96.
7 Id., at pp. 65-70.
8 Id., at p. 96.
9 Id., at pp. 89-92.

254
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Heirs of
Gavina Ijordan

itself.” They argued that what MCIAA submitted was a mere

photocopy of the Deed; that even assuming that the Deed was a
true reproduction of the original, the sale was unenforceable
against them because it was only Julian who had executed the
same without obtaining their consent or authority as his coheirs;
that Article 1317 of the Civil Code provided that “no one may
contract in the name of another without being authorized by the
latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him”; and that
the tax declaration had no probative value by virtue of its having
been derived from the unenforceable sale.
MCIAA opposed the Demurrer to Evidence in due course.10
In its order dated September 2, 1997,11 the RTC dismissed MCIAA’s
complaint insofar as it pertained to the shares of the respondents
in Lot No. 4539 but recognized the sale as to the 1/22 share of
Julian, disposing as follows:

Wherefore, in the light of the foregoing considerations, defendants’

demurrer to evidence is granted with qualification. Consequently,
plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed insofar as it pertains to
defendants’ shares of Lot No. 4539, as reflected in Original
Certificate of Title No. RO 2431. Plaintiff, however, is hereby
declared the owner of 1/22 share of Lot No. 4539. In this
connection, the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City is hereby
directed to effect the necessary change in OCT No. RO-2431 by
replacing as one of the registered owners, “Julian Cuizon, married
to Marcosa Cosef,” with the name of plaintiff. No pronouncement
as to costs.
SO ORDERED.12

The RTC observed that although it appeared from the Deed that
vendor Julian was the only heir of the late Pedro Cuizon,
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 93-94.
11 Id., at pp. 95-99.
12 Id., at p. 99.

255
VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 255
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Heirs of
Gavina Ijordan

thereby adjudicating unto himself the whole of Lot No. 4539, it

likewise appeared from the same Deed that the subject lot was
covered by Cadastral Case No. 20, and that Decree No. 531167
had been issued on July 29, 1930; that having known that the
subject lot had been covered by the decree issued long before the
sale took place, the more appropriate thing that MCIAA or its
representatives should have done was to check the decreed
owners of the lot, instead of merely relying on the tax declaration
issued in the name of Pedro Cuizon and on the statement of Julian;
that the supposedly uninterrupted possession by MCIAA and its
predecessors-in-interest was not sufficiently established, there
being no showing of the improvements introduced on the property;
and that even assuming that MCIAA had held the material
possession of the subject lot, the respondents had remained the
registered owners of Lot No. 4539 and could not be prejudiced by
prescription.
MCIAA moved for reconsideration,13 but the RTC denied its motion
on March 6, 1998.14
MCIAA appealed to the CA, submitting that:15

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT ONLY THE

SHARE OF JULIAN CUIZON WAS SOLD TO PLAINTIFF-
APPELLANT WAY BACK IN 1957.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE UN-

EXPLAINED, UNREASONABLE AND TEDIOUS INACTION OF
DEFENDANT-APPELLEES WHICH CONSTITUTE THEIR
IMPLIED RATIFICATION OF THE SALE WHICH THEY CANNOT
NOW CONVENIENTLY IMPUGN IN ORDER TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE PHENOMENAL RISE IN LAND VALUES
IN MACTAN ISLAND.
_______________
13 Id., at pp. 100-111.
14 Id., at pp. 112-113.
15 Id., at pp. 152-153.

256
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Heirs of
Gavina Ijordan

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PLAINTIFF-

APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVEN POSSESSION OVER SAID
LOT.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING MOTU
PROPRIO DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AS GUILTY OF LACHES
AND/OR ESTOPPEL IN THE FACE OF CLEAR EVIDENCE
FROM THE VERY FACTS OF THE CASE ITSELF; IT SHOULD
BE NOTED, MOREOVER THAT IT WAS PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
WHO INITIATED THE COMPLAINT HENCE THE SAME COULD
NOT PROPERLY BE RAISED AS DEFENSES HEREIN BY
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE VALID

PROVISION OF THE EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND
SALE THAT DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES MERELY HOLD THE
TITLE IN TRUST FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND ARE
THEREFORE OBLIGATED TO SURRENDER THE SAME TO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT SO THE TITLE COULD BE
TRANSFERRED TO IT AS THE VENDEE WAY BACK IN 1957.

In the assailed decision promulgated on February 22, 2006,16

the CA affirmed the orders of the RTC issued on September 2,
199717 and March 6, 1998.18
The CA subsequently denied MCIAA’s motion for
reconsideration19 on June 15, 2006.20

Issues

In this appeal, MCIAA submits the following grounds:21

_______________
16 Id., at pp. 8-18.
17 Id., at pp. 95-99.
18 Id., at pp. 112-113.
19 Id., at pp. 166-175.
20 Id., at pp. 19-20.

257
VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 257
 Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Heirs of
Gavina Ijordan

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT

CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING:

I. RESPONDENTS WERE FULLY AWARE OF THE SALE OF THE

SUBJECT LOT IN 1957 AND PETITIONER’S CONTINUOUS
POSSESSION THEREOF.

II. RESPONDENTS’ INACTION FOR MORE THAN THIRTY (30)

YEARS TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF THE LOT AMOUNTS
TO AN IMPLIED RATIFICATION OF THE SALE.

III. PETITIONER’S POSSESSION OF THE LOT SINCE 1957 IS

BORNE BY THE CASE RECORD.

IV. RESPONDENTS ARE CLEARLY GUILTY OF ESTOPPEL BY

LACHES, WHICH LEGALLY BARS THEM FROM RECOVERING
POSSESSION OF THE LOT.

In other words, was the subject lot validly conveyed in its entirety
to the petitioner?
In support of its appeal, MCIAA insists that the respondents were
fully aware of the transaction with Julian from the time of the
consummation of the sale in 1957, as well as of its continuous
possession thereof;22 that what was conveyed by Julian to its
predecessor-in-interest, the CAA, was the entirety of Lot No. 4539,
consisting of 12,012 square meters, not just his share of 1/22 of the
whole lot; that the respondents were guilty of inexplicable inaction
as to the sale, which manifested their implied ratification of the
supposedly unauthorized act of Julian of selling the subject lot in
1957; that although the respondents were still minors at the time of
the execution of the sale, their ratification of Julian’s act became
evident from the fact that they had not impugned the sale upon
reaching the age of majority; that they asserted their claim only
after knowing of the phenomenal rise in the value
_______________
21 Id., at pp. 29-30.
22 Id., at p. 30.

258
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Heirs of
Gavina Ijordan

of the lot in the area despite their silence for more than 30 years;
and that they did not assert ownership for a long period, and did
not exercise physical and constructive possession by paying the
taxes or declaring the property for taxation purposes.
On their part, the respondents aver that they were not aware of the
sale of the subject lot in 1957 because the sale was not registered,
and because the subject lot was not occupied by MCIAA or its
lessee;23 that they became aware of the claim of MCIAA only when
its representative tried to intervene during the reconstitution of the
certificate of title in 1980; and that one of the co-owners of the
property, Moises Cuison, had been vigilant in preventing the
occupation of the subject lot by other persons.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal has no merit.

Firstly, both the CA and the RTC found the Deed and the Tax
Declaration with which MCIAA would buttress its right to the
possession and ownership of the subject lot insufficient to
substantiate the right of MCIAA to the relief sought. Considering
that possession was a factual matter that the lower courts had
thoroughly examined and based their findings on, we cannot undo
their findings. We are now instead bound and concluded thereby in
accordance with the well-established rule that the findings of fact
of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive.
Indeed, the Court is not a trier of facts. Moreover, this mode of
appeal is limited to issues of law; hence, factual findings should not
be reviewed unless there is a showing of an exceptional reason to
review them. Alas, that showing is not made.
Secondly, the CA and the RTC concluded that the Deed was
void as far as the respondents’ shares in the subject lot
_______________
23 Id., at p. 192.

259
VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 259
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Heirs of
Gavina Ijordan

were concerned, but valid as to Julian’s share. Their conclusion

was based on the absence of the authority from his co-heirs in favor
of Julian to convey their shares in the subject lot. We have no
reason to overturn the affirmance of the CA on the issue of the
respondents’ co-ownership with Julian. Hence, the conveyance by
Julian of the entire property pursuant to the Deed did not bind the
respondents for lack of their consent and authority in his favor. As
such, the Deed had no legal effect as to their shares in the property.
Article 1317 of the Civil Code provides that no person could
contract in the name of another without being authorized by the
latter, or unless he had by law a right to represent him; the contract
entered into in the name of another by one who has no authority or
legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers, is
unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the
person on whose behalf it has been executed, before it is revoked
by the other contracting party. But the conveyance by Julian
through the Deed had full force and effect with respect to his share
of 1/22 of the entire property consisting of 546 square meters by
virtue of its being a voluntary disposition of property on his part. As
ruled in Torres, Jr. v. Lapinid:24

x x x even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale

will affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners
who did not consent to the sale. This is because the sale or other
disposition of a co-owner affects only his undivided share and the
transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor in the
partition of the thing owned in common.

MCIAA’s assertion of estoppel or ratification to bar the

respondents’ contrary claim of ownership of their shares in the
subject lot is bereft of substance. The doctrine of estoppel applied
only to those who were parties to the contract and
_______________
24 G.R. No. 187987, November 26, 2014, 742 SCRA 646.

260
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Heirs of
Gavina Ijordan

their privies or successors-in-interest.25 Moreover, the respondents

could not be held to ratify the contract that was declared to be null
and void with respect to their share, for there was nothing for them
to ratify. Verily, the Deed, being null and void, had no adverse effect
on the rights of the respondents in the subject lot.
 Lastly, MCIAA’s contention on acquisitive prescription in its
favor must fail. Aside from the absence of the satisfactory showing
of MCIAA’s supposed possession of the subject lot, no acquisitive
prescription could arise in view of the indefeasibility of the
respondents’ Torrens title. Under the Torrens System, no adverse
possession could deprive the registered owners of their title by
prescription.26 The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet
title to land and to stop any question as to its legality forever. Thus,
once title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the
necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on
the mirador su casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land.27

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on

certiorari; and AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February 22,
2006.
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Perez and
Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
_______________
25 Article 1439, Civil Code.
26 Bishop v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86787, May 8, 1992, 208 SCRA 636,
641.
27 Francisco v. Rajas, G.R. No. 167120, April 23, 2014, 723 SCRA 423, 450-
451.

261
VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 261
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Heirs of
Gavina Ijordan

Notes.—The Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to

lands; it is merely a system of registration of titles to lands. (Rabaja
Ranch Development Corporation vs. AFP Retirement and
Separation Benefits System, 592 SCRA 201 [2009])
All lands of the public domain are owned by the State — the
registration of lands of the public domain under the Torrens system,
by itself, cannot convert public lands into private lands. (Hacienda
Bigaa, Inc. vs. Chavez, 618 SCRA 559 [2010])

——o0o——